Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/1258

AJIT PANDEY - Complainant(s)

Versus

BAJAJ FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                          

                                    

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 22.06.2013 passed in C. C. No.50/2011 by District Commission, Sidhi)

 

AJEET PANDEY,

S/O SHRI SURESH PRASAD PANDEY,

R/O VILLAGE-OPPOSITE UTTAR KARONDIA

GIRLS COLLEGE, SIDHI,

TEHSIL-GOPAD BANAS, POLICE STATION-KOTWALI,

SIDHI, DISTRICT-SIDHI (M.P.)                                                                         ….       APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

 

1. BAJAJ FINANCE/BAJAJ AUTO COMPANY,

    AKURDI, PUNE-411 035 MAHARASHTRA.

 

2. M/S PARIHAR MOTORS, AUTHORISED SUB-DEALER, CAR,

    FOR BAJAJ AUTO LTD. JAMODI NAMA, REWA ROAD,

    SIDHI DISTRICT-SIDHI (M.P.)

 

3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    COMMERCIAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,

    PILI KOTHI, REWA DISTRICT-REWA (M.P.)                                                 ….    RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY               :  MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA         :   MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri P. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.

                Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

                None for the respondent no.2.

                Shri Pankaj Waghmode, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.   

   

      

                                                        O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 12.12.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sidhi (for short ‘District Commission’) in

-2-

C.C.No.50/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been partly allowed.

2.                The case of the complainant/appellant is that on 26.07.2010 he had obtained loan for Bajaj Platina Motor Cycle from the opposite party no.1 and had purchased the same from opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no.2 told the price of the vehicle as Rs.36,625/-. At the time of taking vehicle he had given Rs.20,682/- to the opposite party no.2 including Rs.843/- insurance charges, Rs.4,000/- registration fee and margin money Rs.15,839/-. He had also given 7 cheques to the opposite party no.2 towards security. The opposite party no.2 got the vehicle insured but could not get the vehicle registered and returned Rs.4,000/-. He further submitted that he had deposited two instalments of Rs.1,339/-. The vehicle was insured for IDV of Rs.32,500/-. On 14.10.2010, the said vehicle got burnt intimation to that effect was given to Police Station Kotwali and opposite parties were also informed. It is alleged that the opposite party no.3-insurance company neither paid the compensation nor returned the cheques obtained by it. He therefore filed a complaint seeking relief of a sum of Rs.30,875/- diffence amount of Rs.5,750/- between the original price of the vehicle and IDV of the vehicle and Rs.20,000/- towards compensation.

 

-3-

3.                The opposite parties have filed their reply separately. The opposite party no.3-insurance company admitted the insurance of vehicle and stated that IDV of vehicle was Rs.30,875/-. When the vehicle got burnt, the survey was done and the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.27,825/-. It is submitted that vide letter dated 28.09.2011, the complainant was asked to produce NOC from the opposite party no.1 so that the assessed amount can be paid to him but the complainant failed to do so and instead filed complaint before the District Commission.  The opposite party no.3 has not committed any deficiency in service.

4.                The opposite party no.1 resisted the complaint stating that it had financed Rs.32,136/- including Rs.7,236/- as finance charges, interest rate of which was 14.50 p.a. and was to be repaid in 24 instalments. The complainant did not deposit Rs.20,682/-, only paid two instalments of Rs.1,339/- each. On 12.08.2012, Rs.45,358/- was outstanding against the complainant. The opposite party no.3-insurance company was informed that sum insured will be paid to opposite party no.1 and the complainant is not entitled for the same.

5.                The District Commission while allowing the complaint directed the opposite party no.3-insurance company to pay Rs.27,825/- as compensation to the opposite party no.1-financer holding that the aforesaid

 

-4-

amount was not paid to the complainant since he did not produce the NOC from the opposite party-1, financer.

6.                Heard. Perused the record.

7.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, we find that the complainant sought relief in his complaint that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.30,875/- the IDV of the vehicle, Rs.5,750/- towards difference in price and IDV of the vehicle along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation and costs. The complainant in his appeal also made the same prayer. However, the District Commission without considering all the aspects though allowed the complaint but not in favour of the complainant but in favour of opposite party no.1, directing the opposite party no.3-insurance company to pay Rs.27,825/- to the opposite party no.1-financer. We find that it is quite amazing.

8.                The District Commission ought to have considered all the aspects whether complainant had deposited the amount towards repayment of financed amount to the opposite party no.1-financer or not and whether the opposite party no.1-financer was entitled to get the amount as assessed by the surveyor. The District Commission has passed a different order other than the relief sought by the complainant in relief clause of the complaint that the opposite parties be directed to give new Bajaj-Platina along with its insurance to the complainant or in alternate the opposite party no.3-

-5-

insurance company be directed to pay sum insured Rs.30,875/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from 14.10.2010. Opposite party no.1 & 2 be directed to refund the original price of the vehicle and difference of sum insured Rs.5,750/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.07.2010. Opposite party no.1 & 2 be directed to refund blank cheques deposited towards security.

9.                In this view of the matter, we set-aside the impugned order and remand the case to the District Commission for decision afresh in accordance with law.

10.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 27.12.2022.

11.              Record be sent to the District Commission. Parties are at liberty to file additional evidence, if any. Thereafter, the District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.   

12.              In the result, the appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the District Commission for decision afresh.

 

   (A. K. Tiwari)       (Dr. Srikant Pandey)      (D. K. Shrivastava)     

     Presiding Member            Member                          Member